Who's Next? - 2020 Edition

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
I'm not following, but I agree. There are a ton of kids that go unnoticed or are ranked low, but have the talent to become better than their rankings if they put in the hard work and are coached properly. My point was more to the flaw in scoring a teams success in recruiting simply because a team took fewer recruits a particular season.

I understood your point. How would you fix it? Only go by average rating? Then a class of 7 - 5 stars is better than a class of 25 with 5 - 5 stars, 19 - 4 stars and a 3 star?

Or do you only count the highest 23? 22? so anything above that is thrown out? Do you start running weighted equations where the first 22 players carry a higher weight in a class score and the lowest three carry less so it gives a big class less weight?

I get pointing out problems but I'm more interested in proposed solutions. How would you handle it?
 

NDIrish88

Well-known member
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
187
I understood your point. How would you fix it? Only go by average rating? Then a class of 7 - 5 stars is better than a class of 25 with 5 - 5 stars, 19 - 4 stars and a 3 star?

Or do you only count the highest 23? 22? so anything above that is thrown out? Do you start running weighted equations where the first 22 players carry a higher weight in a class score and the lowest three carry less so it gives a big class less weight?

I get pointing out problems but I'm more interested in proposed solutions. How would you handle it?

I think the way 247 has the team rankings now is adequate. You have a total score which takes into account he quantity of the total commits, plus they have the average rating of the commits on that team. Use in conjunction with each should suffice to show the quantity (total score) and quality (average rating) of the class.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
20,070
I understood your point. How would you fix it? Only go by average rating? Then a class of 7 - 5 stars is better than a class of 25 with 5 - 5 stars, 19 - 4 stars and a 3 star?

Or do you only count the highest 23? 22? so anything above that is thrown out? Do you start running weighted equations where the first 22 players carry a higher weight in a class score and the lowest three carry less so it gives a big class less weight?

I get pointing out problems but I'm more interested in proposed solutions. How would you handle it?

TBH I never gave any thought on how to handle it. Maybe you take a composite average and just use that. Since 25 is the limit, maybe you take 5th year transfers or 5th year seniors to fill out the 25 if a school has less than 25 recruits for that season.

Rhetorical question........Should a team that has 5 five star recruits, 10 four star and 10 three star be ranked higher than a team with 0 five star, 20 four star and 5 three star?
 

GoldenToTheGrave

Well-known member
Messages
1,907
Reaction score
772
Copied and pasted from a post I made over the winter:

Went down the list of the 24/7 recruiting class averages in the Kelly era:

2019: 90.60
2018: 90.06
2017: 89.37
2016: 89
2015: 90.04
2014: 89.32
2013: 92.3
2012: 91.21
2011: 89.86
2010: 88.44

Even a half point difference is a fairly substantial difference, for example 1 92 average would have been a top 3 quality class all but once in the last 3 years. The last two classes have both been higher quality than any but 2012 and 2013. 2012 shouldn't even count considering that class was tiny (16 commits) and the top 2 players (Kiel and Neal) never even suited up in an ND uniform.

What survived of the 2012 class and then the 2013 class (which is inarguably the best recruiting class of the Kelly era IMO) made the backbone of the 2015 team which had the most talented ND team Kelly has had. Nobody will be able to convince me that team wasn't a playoff team had we even had an average defensive coordinator that year.

Despite what the scuttlebutt about our recruiting since the loss these last two classes are on paper the best back-to-back recruiting classes in the Kelly era. They're better than every class of upperclassmen that took this team to an undefeated regular season. And they seem likely to improve as long as the product on the field continues to stay high. I don't know what the future holds for the program but it comforts me to say the talent level of our team is on the upswing even after what is probably the best season we've had in 25 years.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
247's formula is specifically designed so that having "more recruits" doesn't just give you a bunch more points. There are diminishing returns on your "filler". It's the best formula for recruiting rankings that has ever existed, period.

The flaws mainly come from the volatility and relative impact of some positions. Trevor Lawrence was rated within .002 points of Foster Sarrell.... does anyone in their right mind think they have equivalent value or impact on a team's success? But they count for virtually the same points.
 

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
Despite what the scuttlebutt about our recruiting since the loss these last two classes are on paper the best back-to-back recruiting classes in the Kelly era. They're better than every class of upperclassmen that took this team to an undefeated regular season. And they seem likely to improve as long as the product on the field continues to stay high. I don't know what the future holds for the program but it comforts me to say the talent level of our team is on the upswing even after what is probably the best season we've had in 25 years.

IMO, Kelly's best recruiting classes, in order, were (with explanations):

2013: 92.3 - Clearly the biggest number on the list.
2012: 91.21 - a touch smaller than 92, but still the only number over 90
2019: 90.60 - I wanted to go 2018, but the .60 vs. the .06 made me go with 2019
2018: 90.06 - see above
2015: 90.04 - the last class that I could find with a score over 90
2010: 88.44 - This class got a bump because 1988-- GO IRISH!!!!
2011: 89.86 - great class, but just below all the classes ranked in the 90s
2017: 89.37 - unsuprisingly smaller than 89.86
2014: 89.32 - probably the second or third lowest score on the list
2016: 89 - if I am going to put one class last on this list, its gotta be the one with the lowest score
 
Last edited:

Luckylucci

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
27,769
Reaction score
10,146
247's formula is specifically designed so that having "more recruits" doesn't just give you a bunch more points. There are diminishing returns on your "filler". It's the best formula for recruiting rankings that has ever existed, period.

The flaws mainly come from the volatility and relative impact of some positions. Trevor Lawrence was rated within .002 points of Foster Sarrell.... does anyone in their right mind think they have equivalent value or impact on a team's success? But they count for virtually the same points.

I believe it's up to 25 which they consider a full class. After 25 their are diminishing returns on those players. However, there is still a fairly large discrepancy prior to that number.

Last year is a good example of this. LSU finished at 5th (284.06) with 25 commits and an avg. of 90.75. Oklahoma was 6th (279.28) with 24 commits and with an avg rating of 91.20. Oregon was 7th (277.98) with 26 commits and 90.60. Obviously, Oregon's 26th player didn't add much value as they'd be a lot closer to LSU if it did. And Oklahoma was penalized quite a bit for not having the 25th player, as they had the highest avg. rating of the 3 but ended up being closer to Oregon than LSU in the final tally.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
I believe it's up to 25 which they consider a full class. After 25 their are diminishing returns on those players. However, there is still a fairly large discrepancy prior to that number.

Last year is a good example of this. LSU finished at 5th (284.06) with 25 commits and an avg. of 90.75. Oklahoma was 6th (279.28) with 24 commits and with an avg rating of 91.20. Oregon was 7th (277.98) with 26 commits and 90.60. Obviously, Oregon's 26th player didn't add much value as they'd be a lot closer to LSU if it did. And Oklahoma was penalized quite a bit for not having the 25th player, as they had the highest avg. rating of the 3 but ended up being closer to Oregon than LSU in the final tally.

I am not sure that is accurate.

If you look in LSU's class calculator for 2019, the last 3 players all contributed less than 1 pts per commitment. What is really the issue is that you can "average" close to the same but there could be differences between the schools on how they got there. LSU had 11 guys above .93 while OU only had 6. Those higher individual ranked players are worth more in the weighting.

https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/Season/2019-Football/Commits/Preview/
 

clashmore_mike

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
9,724
Reaction score
2,401
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">&#55357;&#56843; <a href="https://t.co/OAlUZxHUx6">pic.twitter.com/OAlUZxHUx6</a></p>— "EJ Holland" (@EJHollandBGI) <a href="https://twitter.com/EJHollandBGI/status/1129420260501626881?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Luckylucci

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
27,769
Reaction score
10,146
Would be pretty crazy if someone beat Chris Tyree to the punch.
 

NDMIA

Well-known member
Messages
2,333
Reaction score
202
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">�� <a href="https://t.co/OAlUZxHUx6">pic.twitter.com/OAlUZxHUx6</a></p>— "EJ Holland" (@EJHollandBGI) <a href="https://twitter.com/EJHollandBGI/status/1129420260501626881?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

He posted Mills coffee on 5/5 for a 5/6 commitment. Posted 5/7 for Baker’s 5/8 commitment. I’d guess that logic would say something might be coming tomorrow. Would be awesome to get someone else on top of Tyree. Carmody has a late June OV to OSU, Atteberry isn’t a take for OSU right now but maybe he still takes his OSU OV? I have no idea. I’d guess maybe Reece Atteberry or maybe a shot in the dark like Michael Redding wanting to fill his spot with the WR board expanding.
 

Luckylucci

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
27,769
Reaction score
10,146
Atteberry or Redding would be my guess, if it's someone in front of Tyree.
 

NDIrish88

Well-known member
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
187
Xavier watts. EJ and Driskell just CBd him 2 days ago and Henning CB to Michigan. Maybe that?
 

benneboy

And I own every kind of classic car!
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
1,281
Xavier watts. EJ and Driskell just CBd him 2 days ago and Henning CB to Michigan. Maybe that?

That would be awesome but seems unlikely. Feels like attebery with OSU passing on him
 

KizerWilhelm

Well-known member
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
119
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">�� <a href="https://t.co/OAlUZxHUx6">pic.twitter.com/OAlUZxHUx6</a></p>— "EJ Holland" (@EJHollandBGI) <a href="https://twitter.com/EJHollandBGI/status/1129420260501626881?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I doubt this is for a commitment a week out. So my guess is Watts.
 

rtrn2glory

Well-known member
Messages
16,173
Reaction score
6,458
Is it plausible it was the kid who committed to Michigan St tonight? Receiver I think
 
Top